Right Angle began as a column in the now-defunct Sunday magazine in November 1991. The column allowed me the luxury of presenting an alternative to the prevailing left-liberal consensus in India. It has become the implicit signature tune for all my subsequent writings.

Saturday, December 01, 2012

Parliament versus Democracy

By Swapan Dasgupta

In 1927, Carl Schmitt, a German philosopher
associated with the conservative parties of the Weimar Republic, proffered a
curious formulation in his celebrated book The
Concept of the Political. According to him, the existence of a state
presupposed the idea of the political. And the defining feature of the
‘political’ was a clear distinction between friend and enemy.

Schmitt’s ideas are anathema to the liberal ideal of
a state that believes in harmonising existing and potential areas of conflict
and, indeed, de-politicising its citizenry. It is, however, remarkable that
politics in India is fast becoming a clash between antagonists who perceive the
other side as not merely a competitor but an enemy. This is all the more
remarkable because the ‘alternative’, fringe narrative suggests that the enmity
of competitive politics is largely spurious and contrived. Arvind Kejriwal as
repeatedly asserted in the course of his made-in-media campaigns that there is
an unholy “setting” involving the Congress and BJP.

Had the relationship between the two principal
political formations been indeed one of covert understanding, it is unlikely
that contemporary politics would have become so utterly dysfunctional. From spats over the ground rules of
parliamentary proceedings to bad blood over executive decision-making, there is
hardly any facet of politics and government that does not resemble a combat
zone. Moreover, this schism has spilled over into civil society. Even a cursory
perusal of the social media will suggest that India is in the midst of an
undeclared civil war. So far the instruments of combat have been words. But if
the fault-lines continue to widen, even the superficial civilities could be
replaced by more lethal behaviour.

Take the case of the executive decision to permit
foreign investment in multi-brand retailing, an issue that led to parliamentary
proceedings being disrupted for the first few days of the winter session. Going
strictly by the letter of the Indian Constitution, the UPA Government was
entirely within its rights to notify such a decision, without taking recourse
to parliamentary approval. The Constitution, after all, does allow the
executive enormous discretionary powers, far more than is sanctioned in other
democracies. At the same time, the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows
the elected representatives to insist on ministerial accountability.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Parliament,
after deliberating on the subject, decides in its wisdom to disapprove the
measure. Since a Government defeat does not imply that the UPA-2 no longer
commands a majority to govern, there is no obligation on the part of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to resign. Simultaneously, since the Government did
nothing unconstitutional in notify the change in the business rules of the
retail trade, it is under no obligation to withdraw the measure.

Remaining intransigent is an option that is in
theory open to the Government in the event of a defeat in Parliament this week.
But regardless of whether it retreats gracefully or puts up a brave fight to
protect its turf, the implications are bound to be grave.

Regardless of whether the DMK and Samajwadi Party
vote with the government or not, these two parties have made public their
disapproval of any form of FDI in multi-brand retail. Going strictly by the
parliamentary strength of those parties that supported the Bharat Bandh on
September 20, it would seem that only a minority in Parliament is willing to
endorse this particular reform. This implies that there is a potential conflict
between a Constitution principle that facilitated the decision in the first
place and the principle of democracy which encapsulates the “general will” of
the people. Therefore, even if the Government passes the floor tests in both
Houses, preying on the fears of an early election, it is possible to argue that
in passing the parliamentary test it failed the test of democracy.

Interestingly, Schmitt, who wrote his major works in
the last years of a tottering Weimar Republic, had anticipated a conflict
between liberal principles (epitomised by the Weimar Constitution) and
democracy. By his logic, a liberal parliamentary state can become undemocratic
by defying the popular will, which the Weimar Republic did frequently because
of a provision that enabled Chancellors to govern and pass laws by the approval
of the President. Likewise, an
authoritarian state can in theory be more democratic by being in tune with the public
mood.

Schmitt was clearly partial to authoritarian forms
of government and his writings were devoted to assessing the larger
shortcomings of a liberal political order. But this largely forgotten German
professor is not central to our concerns. What is more relevant is that India
is being confronted with a systemic crisis caused by the inability of the
political class to reconcile parliamentary government with democracy.

Thanks to the government’s brazen disregard of the
public dissatisfaction with corruption and inefficiency, the gap between
executive credibility and the popular mood is growing. In more normal
circumstances, the established opposition parties would have filled the moral
and political vacuum. Unfortunately, both the BJP and Left are busy licking
self-inflicted wounds. This state of uncertainty could even lead to a situation
whereby a UPA-3 is voted in at the next general election, but without securing
public trust. In that event, the polarisation between friend and enemy won’t remain
confined to just the institutions of parliamentary government and democracy.
Indian nationhood is also certain to suffer grievously.

About Me

The Right is an endangered community in India's English-language media. I happen to be one of the few to have retained a precarious toehold in the mainstream media. I intend this blog as a sounding board of ideas and concerns.
You can read the details of my education, professional experience and political inclinations on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swapan_Dasgupta).
RIGHT ANGLE is an archive of my published articles. USUAL SUSPECTS is my blog.